Petitioner-Defendant
alleges that his counsel was ineffective, asserting, in
effect, four grounds for relief. Petitioner-Defendant claims
that his counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to
challenge whether sex trafficking is a predicate crime of
violence under the sentencing guidelines; (2) failing to
dispute whether Petitioner-Defendant had the requisite
predicate offenses for the career-offender classification
under the guidelines; (3) failing to object or by conceding
that Petitioner-Defendant had three qualifying convictions
for application of the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”); and (4) failing to raise these and
other claims on Petitioner-Defendant's direct appeal to
the Eighth Circuit. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court denies Petitioner-Defendant's motion and petition,
both on procedural grounds and on the merits.

BACKGROUND

On
April 27, 2015, a jury convicted Petitioner-Defendant of: (1)
sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion (Count 1); (2)
transportation with intent to engage in prostitution (Count
2); and (3) being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count
3). The sentence for sex trafficking by force, fraud, or
coercion is a minimum of 180 months and up to life in prison,
without regard to whether the defendant qualified as a career
offender or armed career criminal. Moreover, even if the
Court had determined that neither the career offender nor the
ACCA guidelines applied, the sentence range would have been
the same-262 to 327 months. Indeed, the Court noted at
sentencing: “I will repeat something I said when we
started. No matter what the guidelines are, I believe the
3553(a) factors would take me to a sentence of 282 months. I
believe anything less than that would promote disrespect for
the law.” (Sent. Tr. at 38; see also Sent. Tr.
at 17.)

The
Presentence Report (“PSR”) correctly calculated
the application to the United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“U.S.S.G.”), including
Petitioner-Defendant's designation as a career offender
under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (for the sex-trafficking
conviction) and as an armed career criminal under the ACCA
(for the felon-in-possession conviction) based on
Petitioner-Defendant's prior qualifying felony
convictions: home invasion in Cook County, Illinois (PSR
¶ 47); first-degree assault in Hennepin County,
Minnesota (PSR ¶ 50); and fifth-degree assault in
Sherburne County, Minnesota (PSR ¶ 53). Consequently,
with an adjusted base offense level of 37 and criminal
history category VI, the presumptive guideline range was 360
months to life imprisonment. The government argued for a
sentence of 360 months. Defense counsel argued for 180
months. On November 24, 2015, this Court sentenced
Petitioner-Defendant to 282 months, with a lifetime of
supervised release to follow. (Doc. No. 107.) This sentence
comprised of 282 months on both Counts 1 and 3 to run
concurrently. Id. at 2.

Petitioner-Defendant,
with the help of trial counsel, moved for a post-trial
acquittal, which this Court denied. Petitioner-Defendant was
then given a new lawyer for the purposes of filing a direct
appeal to the Eighth Circuit, challenging (1) the Court's
decision not to sever the sex-trafficking and gun counts; (2)
the admission of limited testimony of victim N.M. pursuant to
Rule 404(b) relating to a felony conviction for terroristic
threats; (3) the admission of expert testimony on sex
trafficking; and (4) that the sex-trafficking and
interstate-transportation convictions (Counts 1 and 2) were
not supported by sufficient evidence. On January 3, 2017, the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
Petitioner-Defendant's conviction. (Doc. No. 129.) On
July 10, 2017, Petitioner-Defendant filed this pro
se motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

DISCUSSION

I.
Section 2255 Legal Standard

Title
28, United States Code, Section 2255, provides that a
prisoner “may move the court which imposed the sentence
to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence.” In
making such a motion, a § 2255 action requires a
prisoner to show that he has the right to be released
because:

[T]he sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence
was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is
otherwise subject to collateral attack. . . .

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Relief
under &sect; 2255 is extraordinary and &ldquo;is reserved for
transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow
range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct
appeal and, if uncorrected, would result in a complete
miscarriage of justice.&rdquo; United States v.
Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996). Thus, &sect;
2255 &ldquo;does not encompass all claimed errors in
conviction and sentencing.&rdquo; Sun Bear ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.